A live performance cannot be copyrighted due to the fact that it's live.

The two problems arise under section 1101 of the Copyright Act and the criminal anti-bootlegging statue that Congress passed a number of years ago (Title 18 USC 2319A).

Section 1101 requires "consent of the performer" if you "fix the... sounds and images of a live musical performance" (which is what you've done in making the recording, assuming it's a "live musical performance"). It also would require consent if you "transmit... to the public" (which is what your blog would do).

a performer has no expectation of privacy, which is typically the rule of thumb used when determining if recording is permitted.

Go ahead and record a movie in the theaters with your phone and see what happens when you apply your rule of thumb. Here a movie showing in a theater is a public performance that is similar to concert, except it's not live.

Or someone will upload the video to youtube or bittorent... where others will watch the show and guess what? Fewer ticket sales. If money was not an issue, most of these performers would not mind cameras. But they have to make a living... so no cameras, no piracy.

Oh and live performances are almost always sloppy compared to recorded events meant for mass-consumption, so no one cares about these slip ups.

Let's say a poke go user spends an average of 1 hour/day for 3 years playing the game. That's 45 days spent on a worthless, non-entertaining activity that's played only because "you gotta catch'em all." I'm tired of all these xp-based, grinding mobile games that keep the player playing just by adding new characters. Games should be played for a few months, then discarded.

Step 1: Provide a free service that people like, funded by the occasional adStep 3: Increase the amount of ads and start moderating content because now you have to worry about lawsuits

Do you have any idea how expensive bandwidth costs are? That's the reason there are very few video sites. How exactly is step 1 feasible without some sort of revenue in step 3? You don't just have to cover costs, you also have to make a profit.

Next time you want a free service, ask yourself if you would sign up for a 9-to-5 job with a $0 paycheck?

They need to do only a couple things to fix this. Firstly, they need to just design the phone so that it never charges above 80%.

I agree with you except about the "never" part. The phone settings should allow charging to 80% or 100% (in case you need the extra 20% on rare occasions, like a long trip).

I bet the phone manufacturers already know this, but still charge to 100% knowing that a lot of users will upgrade to newer phones once the batteries in their current phone die prematurely due to 100% charging.

Zuckerberg's comment about not wanting people under 30 is the default stance of the tech industry.

If that's their stance, that's like athletes, who pretty much retire around 35 or so. If they don't want old guys as programmers, better pay high salaries to young programmers, just like how athletes get paid. So they can retire or find another job when they are "too old."

What's stopping Ford, GM or Toyota from operating their own taxi-hailing app/servers that connects passengers to their own AI-driven cars? Operating a taxi service generates more revenue than selling cars. Once Uber eliminates human drivers, they won't have a huge monopoly.

According to the Tesla apologists, the driver is supposed to turn autopilot on, keep his eyes on the road and his hands on the steering wheel. That means, on a 3-hour trip, he has to watch the road for 3 hours and in case the car fails to respond correctly (like a driver without a driver's license), he's supposed to intervene and take control of the car to avoid an accident.

What is the f**ing point of this autopilot technology if the driver has to watch the road the whole trip? And how much are these shills getting paid to defend Tesla?